Legal Opinion

Williams v. Hawley

California Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1904No. L.A. No. 1280PublishedCited by 37 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Campbell, Metson & Campbell, and William D. Dehy, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial. "The action is to enforce an alleged lien upon a mining claim belonging to the defendant, for services as a watchman, alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, amounting to the sum of six hundred and thirty-seven dollars.

The defendant attempts to raise the point that a person engaged as a watchman of a mine is not performing “labor in any mining claim” so as to be entitled to a lien under section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure, although the work of mining therein or development…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. Ah SamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Herrlich v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Wright v. RoseberryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Janson v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Reese v. Bald Mountain Consolidated Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1901

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Parsons v. EastonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Estate of KayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Tanzola v. De RitaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Stern v. DillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API